> | > Pardon my ignorance in this matter, but what is it that is > | > unpleasing? The complexity of it? From my understanding, NFSv4 is > | > more firewall friendly, using only port 2049, and can also be > | > kerberized for additional security. Can OpenBSD's NFS implementation > | > do that? > | > | NFSv4 is a gigantic joke on everyone. > > IMO, so is the notion of divine deities, but that doesn't answer the original > posters question, nor my response to Henning. > > We implemented, NFSv4 using AD, Kerberos, GNU/Linux and Mac OS X, no OpenBSD > though, and to me complexity was the biggest issue. It was very difficult > because of all the potential points of breakage and inter-dependency.
> Out of all of the protocols though it was the most transparent for > our multi-platform support. Hahahahaha. That's a good one. I guess by "all the other protocols" you must be rejecting all the rest of your network traffic as "not protocols" or "not services".
